Coulter v. Colvin

Filing 21

DECISION AND ORDER adopting 19 Report and Recommendations, granting 14 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and denying 17 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 10/11/2017. (CDH)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JULIE LYNN COULTER,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

No. 1:15-CV-00849 (MAT)
DECISION AND ORDER

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

Represented by counsel, Julie Lynn Coulter (“plaintiff”)
brings this action pursuant to Titles II and XVI of the Social
Security Act (“the Act”), seeking review of the final decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying
her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income.

The Court has jurisdiction over this matter

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter is before the Court on
the parties’ cross motions for judgment on the pleadings. The
parties’ motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J.
McCarthy

for

consideration

of

the

factual

and

legal

issues

presented, and to prepare and file a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) containing a recommended disposition of the issues raised.
By R&R dated September 5, 2017, Judge McCarthy recommended
that the case be remanded for further administrative proceedings,
for the reasons described therein.

Docket No. 19.

Both parties

were notified that they were given 14 days within which to file
objections; however, neither party has filed an objection.

Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy
of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the party “may
serve

and

file

specific,

written

objections

to

the

proposed

findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “Where no
objection is made to a report and recommendation, or the parties
make frivolous, conclusive, or general objections, only ‘clear
error’ review is required by the district court.”

Teixeria v. St.

Jude Med. S.C., Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 218, 222 (W.D.N.Y. 2016).
“After conducting the appropriate review, the district judge may
‘accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.’”

Id. (quoting 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)). No objections having been filed, the Court has
reviewed the R&R for clear error and finds none.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the R&R (Docket No. 19) is approved and adopted
in its entirety.

The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the

pleadings (Docket No. 17) is denied, and plaintiff’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Docket No. 14) is granted to the extent
that the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.

S/Michael A. Telesca
HON. MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
Dated:

October 11, 2017
Rochester, New York.